A feasibility randomised trial comparing therapeutic thoracentesis to chest tube insertion for the management of pleural infection: results from the ACTion trial.

BACKGROUND: Pleural infection is a complex condition with a considerable healthcare burden. The average hospital stay for pleural infection is 14 days. Current standard of care defaults to chest tube insertion and intravenous antibiotics. There have been no randomised trials on the use of therapeutic thoracentesis (TT) for pleural fluid drainage in pleural infection. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a full-scale trial of chest tube vs TT for pleural infection in a single UK centre. The primary outcome was defined as the acceptability of randomisation to patients. METHODS: Adult patients admitted with a pleural effusion felt to be related to infection and meeting criteria for drainage (based on international guidelines) were eligible for randomisation. Participants were randomised (1:1) to chest tube insertion or TT with daily review assessing need for further drainages or other therapies. Neither participant nor clinician were blinded to treatment allocation. Patients were followed up at 90 days post-randomisation. RESULTS: From September 2019 to June 2021, 51 patients were diagnosed with pleural infection (complex parapneumonic effusion/empyema). Eleven patients met the inclusion criteria for trial and 10 patients were randomised (91%). The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on recruitment. Data completeness was high in both groups with no protocol deviations. Patients randomised to TT had a significantly shorter overall mean hospital stay (5.4 days, SD 5.1) compared to the chest tube control group (13 days, SD 6.0), p = 0.04. Total number of pleural procedures required per patient were similar, 1.2 in chest tube group and 1.4 in TT group. No patient required a surgical referral. Adverse events were similar between the groups with no readmissions related to pleural infection. CONCLUSIONS: The ACTion trial met its pre-specified feasibility criteria for patient acceptability but other issues around feasibility of a full-scale trial remain. From the results available the hypothesis that TT can reduce length of stay in pleural infection should be explored further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 84674413.

Are aerosols generated during lung function testing in patients and healthy volunteers? Results from the AERATOR study.

Pulmonary function tests are fundamental to the diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory diseases. There is uncertainty around whether potentially infectious aerosols are produced during testing and there are limited data on mitigation strategies to reduce risk to staff. Healthy volunteers and patients with lung disease underwent standardised spirometry, peak flow and FENO assessments. Aerosol number concentration was sampled using an aerodynamic particle sizer and an optical particle sizer. Measured aerosol concentrations were compared with breathing, speaking and voluntary coughing. Mitigation strategies included a standard viral filter and a full-face mask normally used for exercise testing (to mitigate induced coughing). 147 measures were collected from 33 healthy volunteers and 10 patients with lung disease. The aerosol number concentration was highest in coughs (1.45-1.61 particles/cm3), followed by unfiltered peak flow (0.37-0.76 particles/cm3). Addition of a viral filter to peak flow reduced aerosol emission by a factor of 10 without affecting the results. On average, coughs produced 22 times more aerosols than standard spirometry (with filter) in patients and 56 times more aerosols in healthy volunteers. FENO measurement produced negligible aerosols. Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) masks reduced aerosol emission when breathing, speaking and coughing significantly. Lung function testing produces less aerosols than voluntary coughing. CPET masks may be used to reduce aerosol emission from induced coughing. Standard viral filters are sufficiently effective to allow guidelines to remove lung function testing from the list of aerosol-generating procedures.

Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract: an analysis of aerosol generation from oxygen delivery systems.

INTRODUCTION: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) provide enhanced oxygen delivery and respiratory support for patients with severe COVID-19. CPAP and HFNO are currently designated as aerosol-generating procedures despite limited high-quality experimental data. We aimed to characterise aerosol emission from HFNO and CPAP and compare with breathing, speaking and coughing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers were recruited to breathe, speak and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theatres followed by using CPAP and HFNO. Aerosol emission was measured using two discrete methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 had cough recorded using the same methodology on the infectious diseases ward. RESULTS: In healthy volunteers (n=25 subjects; 531 measures), CPAP (with exhalation port filter) produced less aerosol than breathing, speaking and coughing (even with large >50 L/min face mask leaks). Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions of any recorded activity. HFNO was associated with aerosol emission, however, this was from the machine. Generated particles were small (<1 µm), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, thereby unlikely to carry viral particles. More aerosol was generated in cough from patients with COVID-19 (n=8) than volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, standard non-humidified CPAP is associated with less aerosol emission than breathing, speaking or coughing. Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract does not appear to be increased by HFNO. Although direct comparisons are complex, cough appears to be the main aerosol-generating risk out of all measured activities.

Predicting outcomes of COVID-19 from admission biomarkers: a prospective UK cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has an unpredictable clinical course, so prognostic biomarkers would be invaluable when triaging patients on admission to hospital. Many biomarkers have been suggested using large observational datasets but sample timing is crucial to ensure prognostic relevance. The DISCOVER study prospectively recruited patients with COVID-19 admitted to a UK hospital and analysed a panel of putative prognostic biomarkers on the admission blood sample to identify markers of poor outcome. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to hospital with proven or clinicoradiological suspected COVID-19 were consented. Admission bloods were extracted from the clinical laboratory. A panel of biomarkers (interleukin-6 (IL-6), soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), Krebs von den Lungen 6, troponin, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, B-type natriuretic peptide, procalcitonin) were performed in addition to routinely performed markers (C reactive protein (CRP), neutrophils, lymphocytes, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio). Age, National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), CURB-65 and radiographic severity score on initial chest radiograph were included as comparators. All biomarkers were tested in logistic regression against a composite outcome of non-invasive ventilation, intensive care admission or death, with area under the curve (AUC) (figures calculated). RESULTS: 187 patients had 28-day outcomes at the time of analysis. CRP (AUC: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.78), lymphocyte count (AUC: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.72) and other routine markers did not predict the primary outcome. IL-6 (AUC: 0.77, 0.65 to 0.88) and suPAR (AUC: 0.81, 0.72 to 0.88) showed some promise, but simple clinical features alone such as NEWS2 score (AUC: 0.70, 0.60 to 0.79) or age (AUC: 0.70, 0.62 to 0.77) performed nearly as well. DISCUSSION: Admission blood biomarkers have only moderate predictive value for predicting COVID-19 outcomes, while simple clinical features such as age and NEWS2 score outperform many biomarkers. IL-6 and suPAR had the best performance, and further studies should focus on the additive value of these biomarkers to routine care.

Krebs von den Lungen 6 (KL-6) as a marker for disease severity and persistent radiological abnormalities following COVID-19 infection at 12 weeks.

INTRODUCTION: Acute presentations of COVID-19 infection vary, ranging from asymptomatic carriage through to severe clinical manifestations including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Longer term sequelae of COVID-19 infection includes lung fibrosis in a proportion of patients. Krebs von den Lungen 6 (KL-6) is a mucin like glycoprotein that has been proposed as a marker of pulmonary epithelial cell injury. We sought to determine whether KL-6 was a marker of 1) the severity of acute COVID-19 infection, or 2) the persistence of symptoms/radiological abnormalities at medium term follow up. METHODS: Prospective single centre observational study. RESULTS: Convalescent KL-6 levels were available for 93 patients (male 63%, mean age 55.8 years) who attended an 12-week follow up appointment after being admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For 67 patients a baseline KL-6 result was available for comparison. There was no significant correlations between baseline KL-6 and the admission CXR severity score or clinical severity NEWS score. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the baseline KL-6 level and an initial requirement for oxygen on admission or the severity of acute infection as measured at 28 days. There was no significant difference in the 12-week KL-6 level and the presence or absence of subjective breathlessness but patients with abnormal CT scans at 12 weeks had significantly higher convalescent KL-6 levels compared to the remainder of the cohort (median 1101 IU/ml vs 409 IU/ml). CONCLUSIONS: The association between high KL-6 levels at 12 weeks and persisting CT abnormalities (GGO/fibrosis), is a finding that requires further exploration. Whether KL-6 may help differentiate those patients with persisting dyspnoea due to complications rather than deconditioning or dysfunctional breathing alone, is an important future research question.

Blood group type A secretors are associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 cardiovascular disease complications.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus causes COVID-19, an infection capable of causing severe disease and death but which can also be asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic. We investigated whether ABO blood group or secretor status was associated with COVID-19 severity. We investigated secretor status because expression of ABO glycans on secreted proteins and non-erythroid cells are controlled by a fucosyltransferase (FUT2), and inactivating FUT2 mutations result in a non-secretor phenotype which protects against some viral infections. Data combined from healthcare records and our own laboratory tests (n = 275) of hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction positive patients confirmed higher than expected numbers of blood group A individuals compared to O (RR = 1.24, CI 95% [1.05, 1.47], p = 0.0111). There was also a significant association between group A and COVID-19-related cardiovascular complications (RR = 2.56, CI 95% [1.43, 4.55], p = 0.0011) which is independent of gender. Molecular analysis revealed that group A non-secretors are significantly less likely to be hospitalized than secretors. Testing of convalescent plasma donors, among whom the majority displayed COVID-19 symptoms and only a small minority required hospitalization, group A non-secretors were slightly over-represented. Our findings showed that group A non-secretors are not resistant to infection by SARS-CoV-2, but are more likely to experience a less severe form of associated disease.

Patient outcomes after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and implications for follow-up: results from a prospective UK cohort.

The longer-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection are uncertain. Consecutive patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were prospectively recruited to this observational study (n=163). At 8-12 weeks postadmission, survivors were invited to a systematic clinical follow-up. Of 131 participants, 110 attended the follow-up clinic. Most (74%) had persistent symptoms (notably breathlessness and excessive fatigue) and limitations in reported physical ability. However, clinically significant abnormalities in chest radiograph, exercise tests, blood tests and spirometry were less frequent (35%), especially in patients not requiring supplementary oxygen during their acute infection (7%). Results suggest that a holistic approach focusing on rehabilitation and general well-being is paramount.